{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"pushd [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"pushd [ARCHIVE] (npub10p…5pm6u)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub10pnw8ycq59uep57cs2z7tl3yuqvmph7aj0pzp3ks9ansjkh47u8q95pm6u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22\n📝 Original message:Hi Luke,\n\n\u003e But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.\n\nAgree. Any soft fork that uses only speedy trial should be opposed. There are few other reasons to oppose it as well:\n\n- Premature idea\n- Use cases are not interesting for all users\n- We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and looking for the best proposal\n- Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon\n- Not enough documentation available\n- Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed\n- Not enough tools available for testing\n\nI am planning to maintain a page for all the NACKs against BIP 118 based on this thread. I am assuming you don't mind including your name in it.\n\npushd\n\n---\nparallel lines meet at infinity?\n\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 3\n\u003e Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:01:14 +0000\n\u003e From: Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, darosior\n\u003e darosior at protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV\n\u003e Message-ID: 202204221701.15307.luke at dashjr.org\n\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\u003e\n\u003e There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically\n\u003e so we can have multiple deployments in parallel.\n\u003e\n\u003e But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n\u003e On Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly\n\u003e\u003e tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for\n\u003e\u003e over 6 years. It presents proven and implemented usecases, that are\n\u003e\u003e demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted\n\u003e\u003e than CTV's.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its \"ANYONECANPAY\" behaviour is made\n\u003e\u003e optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. Sure then you can't have bare or\n\u003e\u003e Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider\n\u003e\u003e CTV an optimization of APO-AS covenants.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although\n\u003e\u003e as someone who've been trying to implement practical vaults for the past 2\n\u003e\u003e years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still useful!),\n\u003e\u003e using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that\n\u003e\u003e are going to matter for a potential vault user.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated\n\u003e\u003e usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction\n\u003e\u003e to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the\n\u003e\u003e meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging\n\u003e\u003e ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better\n\u003e\u003e offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that\n\u003e\u003e could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be\n\u003e\u003e interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118,\n\u003e\u003e since it enables CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via\n\u003e\u003e sha_sequences and maybe also sha_amounts). Cf\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-me\n\u003e\u003e ssage.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ \"Use Cases\" section\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 42\n\u003e *******************************************\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220422/608937c7/attachment.html\u003e"}